Debunking Some of the Myths
About Glossolalia
H. NEWTON MALONY
Graduate School of Psychology
Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena. California 91101

From: JASA 34(September 1982): 144-148.

Recently, a young man was observed muttering to
himself as he examined various titles on the shelves of a
bookstore. He would run his fingers over the title of the
book in a gingerly manner then touch his forehead lightly
with the volume. This would be followed by incomprehensible muttering. It soon became apparent that the youth
was praying in a strange language. It was glossolalia-the
pietistic utterances of those who feel they are expressing
their faith in a manner similar to first century Christians at
the day of Pentecost (cf Acts 2) and in the Corinthian
Church (cf I Corinthians 12).

Events like this, plus many other different but similar experiences, have led many to presume that glossolalic persons were abnormal at worst or eccentric at best. Such
questions as the following have been posed: "Are
glossolalics psychologically different from others"? Do
glossolalics tend toward greater preoccupation with emotional experience than others"? Is the experience of
glossolalia one in which persons go into a trance and lose
consciousness"? In what manner could glossolalia be considered a valid Christian experience?

In an effort to answer these questions a programatic
study of these issues has been in process at the Graduate
School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary since
1971. For the past eight years graduate students under the direction of this author, a clinical
psychologist and United
Methodist minister, have completed a variety of experiments designed to determine
the parameters of glossolalic phenomena. This essay is a report on the
research.

What Is Glossolatia?

Although most persons are acquainted with glossolalia a
brief summary of its meaning is in order. The literal definition of the term is "gift of tongues". In the Christian tradition it referred originally to phenomena which occurred on
the day of Pentecost. The author of Acts reports that as the
faithful were gathered together in prayer forty days after
the death/ resurrection of Jesus the Holy Spirit swept over
them with mighty power and they each began to speak in
one of the languages of the world. None of them had any
background in these languages so the ability to speak in
them was understood as due to the power of the Holy
Spirit. The explanation given for this miracle was that it occurred so the good news of Jesus could be spoken to the nations.

As the church became established in the cities of the
Roman empire, glossolalia came to be thought of as
evidence that the Holy Spirit was present in one's life. In the tongue speaking noted in the church at Corinth the utterances did not seem to be recognizable languages and the
problem of interpreting the meaning of the words became
an issue. Further, tongue speaking was suggested to be only
one of the indications that a person was baptized with the
Holy Spirit.

Since biblical times, glossolalia has continued to be a part
of numerous Christians' experience although it long ago
ceased to play a major role in Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant -Christianity. Nevertheless, contemporary Christianity includes several smaller denominations for whom all
gifts of the Spirit, and especially speaking in tongues, are of
central concern. These well established Pentecostal
churches have been joined in the last half of this century by
a neo-Pentecostal revival within major religious groups.
Thus, there is a vital and increasingly accepted facet of
Christianity that expresses its faith in this manner even
though no research has proven these utterances to be
understandable in the syntax or semantics of any extant
language.

Who Becomes Glossolalic and Why?

Since by no means all Christians speak in tongues the question of who does and why becomes important.A number of personal and situational variables have
been, or should be, considered. Psychopathology was early
suggested as the prime concomitant of glossolalia (Knox,
1950). While several authors' postulate1 such a relationship, Hine2 concluded there was none.

Glossolalics have been found to be well adjusted to their
social environments,
I
and able to control their thought processes outside the experience in a way dissimilar to
schizophrenics who also spoke in tongues.' While evidence
of interpersonal uncertainty was reported in other research
utilizing psychological tests' still no signs of psychopathology were observed. In fact,
Gerrard3 indicated that an

Figure
1. The presence of psychopathology in glossolalics of different social class and group expectancies.

There is a vital and increasingly accepted facet of Christianity that expresses its faith in glossolalia even
though no research has proven these
utterances to be understandable in the
syntax or semantics of any extant
language.

analysis of MMPI profiles suggested glossolalics were better adjusted than members of a conventional denomination. Only Kildahl and
Qualben,7 among contemporary investigators, reported evidence for lower ego strength and
higher suggestibility.

Pattison8 suggested there was an interesting relationship
between social expectancy and psychopathology in glossolalia. He proposed that in religious groups where glossolalia
was the norm, speaking in tongues would not be psychopathological but that in groups where it was not expected
the reverse would be true.

He further reported that there were class differences in
his research. Overt psychopathology seemed to be present
more often among lower class glossolalics than among middle and upper classes. This accorded with the insight of
Boisen,9 among others, that glossolalia functioned as a
status symbol among the isolated and dispossessed.

Hine10 termed this the disorganization-deprivation
theory. Where society was fluid and changing and where a
group of people were not succeeding in moving up the
socio-economic scale, there glossolalia would be expected
to be a compensatory act designed to overcome isolation
and lack of status. Boisen,11 Johnson,12 Lanternari,13 and
Pattison14 all concluded that in marginal socio-economic
groups certain religious expressions served as substitutes for lack of achievement.

Another interesting tendency reported by Hine15 was an
inclination for second generation glossolalics to speak in
tongues less frequently than their parents who tended to
come from denominations where it was devalued. It has
also been suggested that in middle class groups, glossolalia
meets group goals rather than personal needs. it is more a
matter of social conformity than of compensation for loss.
Therefore the functional meaning of tongue speaking seems
to be more critical among those for whom the experience is
a more radical departure from social expectancy.

A three dimensional model including the presence of
psychopathology, the group expectancy of glossolalia and
social class was conceived as the basis for our investigations. Figure I illustrates this model.

Thus, where a person was glossolalic we hypothesized (s)he would be more likely to be psychopathological if
(s)he
was from the lower class in a group where glossolalia was
not the norm. (S)he would be less likely to be psychopathological if (s)he were a member of the middle-upper class in a
group where glossolalia was the norm.

In the first study, based on this model, the incidence and
frequency of glossolalia were correlated with the personality variables among youth who were members of a
religious group where glossolalia was the expected norm
(i.e. middle to upper class Assembly of God youth attending -a summer camp). Over ninety percent of the youths
(ages 14-17) reported they spoke in tongues. Demographic
data regarding family background, initial glossolalic experience, conversion, etc. were also assessed. These data were
analyzed via analyses of variance in which high and low frequencies of glossolalia were the independent variables. No
relationship was found between introversion or extroversion (using the Eysenck Personality Inventory) and the incidence or frequency of glossolalics to feel more internally or
externally controlled (as measured by Rotter's I-E Scale16).

These results lent some support to our presumption that
there would be no evidence of psychopathology among
those in the middle to upper social classes where glossolalia
was the norm. Of related interest was the finding of a significant tendency for high-frequency glossolalics to be more
intrinsic in their orientation to religion than either nonglossolalics or low frequency glossolalics (as measured by
Allport's EIRO Scale). This suggested to us that they were
more likely to perceive religion as meeting individual personal fulfillment than status needs in their lives. Demographically, glossolalia was related to having been converted, frequency of church attendance and the religious
activity of parents. It was not related to sex or an index of
socio-economic class, i.e., salary of father. While it most
often began in a group setting, it was more frequently used
in private devotions.

A second study was undertaken to replicate the data on intrinsic orientation toward religion plus relate glossolalia
to religious beliefs and an index of religious activity, i.e.,
social action. Sample weaknesses in the first study were also
corrected.

Tongue speaking Christians appeared
to be normal both prior to as well as
after they became glossolalic. Most
surprising was the finding that being a
part of the group had as much impact
as speaking in tongues.

This interest in whether glossolalia resulted in new
behavior (such a participation in social action projects) was
prompted by Gerlach, et. al.17
who saw glossolalia as a sign
that the personality was being radically reorganized and a
person was willing to risk new behavior. Again, the investigation was conducted among persons of similar social
background who had all been exposed to similar religious
experiences where glossolalia was the expected norm. Forty
Assembly of God youths who went on a social action trip to
Mexico were compared to forty youths who did not go.
High and low frequency glossolalics in each group were also
compared. The data were subjected to analysis of variance.
The earlier lack of relationships between socio-economic class and sex was confirmed as was the tendency for glossolalics to be more intrinsic in their orientation toward
religion and for glossolalia among youths to be related to
glossolia among parents. There was a significant tendency
for youths who participated in the social action project to
be more glossolalic, thus giving support to the hypothesis
about the behavioral effect of the phenomena. Further,
although there were no differences in beliefs about God's
nearness and accessibility, there was a significant tendency
for more frequent glossolalia to be related to a negative and
sinful view of man. Those who participated in the social action project were more pessimistic in their view of man than
those who did not participate.18

In a more direct test of our model, we compared upper
and lower class glossolalics on physiological changes which
occurred during the experiences.19 Early in the 1900's
investigators had proposed that glossolalia was a regressive
psychological state involving automatisms, loss of conscious control, fugue states and dissociations resembling
hypnotic trance. Later Pattison20 proposed that there were
different types of glossolalia with varying degrees of cortical control. Those with less control he called "serious"
and those with more control he termed "playful." We
hypothesized that those in the lower social class, from a religious tradition where it was not expected, who frequently
spoke in tongues, would show physiological changes (i.e.,
be more hysterical and suggestible) while those in the middle upper social classes, from traditions where glossolalia
was the norm, who spoke infrequently, would not show
such changes. The former we labeled "Process" glossolalia(cf Pattison's "serious") indicating it was a
personal
inner
process probably reflecting psychological compensation for
lack of status. The latter we labeled "Act" glossolalia (cf
Pattison's "playful") indicating it was a social
act
designed
to reflect group conformity.

Changes in brain wave activity and heart rate were assessed as glossolalics prayed in English and prayed in
tongues. Contrary to expectation there were no significant
differences between Act and Process glossolalics.

Initially this led us to conclude that our model was in error. This still may be so. However, we are more inclined to
think that the lack of results was due to the problems we encountered in convincing people to come to pray in a psychophysiological laboratory and the errors we made in
assigning persons to socio-economic levels. In regard to the
first we may have utilized a very biased sample of persons.
They seemed to be neo-Pentecostals for whom glossolalia
appears to be predominantly under voluntary control. We
need to assess the phenomenon among traditional
Pentecostals for whom glossolalia reportedly is much more
likely to be experienced as uninvited possession. Further,
the instrument used in determining social class assessed
occupation and education. In one case, this formula placed
an unemployed graduate student in the lower social
class-an obvious error of measurement. A more rigorous
standard is needed. However, if the results of this study are
accepted as conclusive, the inference that glossolalics are
different psychologically at the time of the event must be
reconsidered.

Perhaps our most conclusive study to date was concerned
with personality changes that might result from the experience of becoming
glossolalic.21 As early as 1908 Lombard22 had suggested that glossolalia was a "rejuvenating"
experience, i.e., that it had some positive impact on persons. As noted earlier, although the presence of psychopathology in the glossolalic experience had been postulated
little evidence had been found for this dynamic save in the
research of Kildahl and Qualben23 and Wood.24 We reasoned that the "normality" observed in such studies as
Gerrard and Gerrard25 and Vivier26 could perhaps have
been accounted for by the impact of speaking in tongues on
personality integration. In other words, they might havebeen abnormal before the event but have become mentally
healthy afterwards.

Heretofore there had been no published studies on personality changes resulting from glossolalia that included
assessment prior to the experience. This study attempted to
study the effects of this phenomenon by measuring persons
in "Life in the Spirit" seminars on personality and attitudinal variables pre, post, and three months after the
seminar. These seminars (in Roman Catholic and Episcopal
churches in New Mexico and California) were twelve week
long study groups designed to introduce persons to the gifts
of the Holy Spirit. Persons who become glossolalic were
compared to those who were already glossolalic and those
who did not become glossolalic. No one of the groups was
psychopathological at pre-testing time. Although persons
who did not become glossolalic were highest in depression,
hostility, and anxiety at the beginning of the seminar, all
groups were similar at the time of follow-up. All persons
changed in the direction of personality integration.
However, those who became glossolalic did not change
more than those who did not. The results were interpreted
primarily as a function of attending the seminar rather than
of the glossolalic experience.

We even compared the participants in the seminars to the
standardized norms for the several personality tests we used
and found them to be not significantly different on any
measure from the average prior to the experience. Thus, we
concluded that tongue speaking Christians appeared to be
normal both prior to as well as after they became glossolalic. Most surprising to us was the finding that being a part
of the group had as much impact as speaking in tongues.

Finally, our most recent study extended the investigation
of physiological changes during speaking in tongues by
comparing "body auras" in glossolalic and non glossolalic
Presbyterians." Matched pairs (on sex, marital status and
years in the church) were measured via the Kirlian (negative
photography) method in resting, prayer-in-English, and
prayer-in-tongues conditions. Thorough analysis of variance procedures among conditions and between group
comparisons were made. No significant differences in such
measures as size and color of aura was observed. The
hypothesis that change in auras should be different in

H. Newton Malony is Professor and Director of Programs in Psychology and
Theology in the Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary.
He is a diplomate in clinical psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology, and President-Elect of Division 36, Psychologists Interested in
Religious Issues of APA. As well, he is President of the Christian Association
for Psychological Studies, Western Region. He is co-author (with Adams
Lovekin) of a forthcoming book on
Social and Psychological Research on
Glossolalia being published by Oxford University Press, as well as editor of
Current Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion (Eerdmans).

various kinds of persons and among emotional conditions,
was not confirmed. No evidence for significant physiological change during the phenomenon was observed.
Trance state was not evident.

Our Conclusions

Our research in ongoing. We are still asking some of the
basic questions concerning individual differences among
persons who speak in tongues and concerning the nature of
the phenomenon itself. We are well aware of the significant
variety in traditions, setting, and types of glossolalia and intend to replicate our study of socio-economic class and
group expectancy.

However, our conclusions to date are as follows:

1. Speaking in tongues appears to be a concomitant of
pietistic revivals throughout Christian history.

2. Contemporary glossolalic expression can be observed
in both traditional and in neo-Pentecostalism and varies
greatly in terms of group expectancy, setting and frequency.

3. Where tongue speaking is expected, the vast majority
of youth are glossolalic by age seventeen. More frequent
glossolalics do not differ psychologically from less frequent
glossolalics but do appear to participate in more projects of
social action.

4. Frequent glossolalia evidenced by persons in the lower
social class from a background where it was not the norm
does not appear to differ in kind from that practiced infrequently by upper to middle class persons in traditions where
it is expected.

5. There is no indication that glossolalics go into trance
during the experience.

6. Persons who speak in tongues do not appear to be
mentally unhealthy either before or after the experience.